Canada Navy Canada SSK program

Isa Khan

Experienced member
Moderator
Messages
6,642
Reactions
22 9,817
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh

According to a tweet published by the Royal Canadian Navy on June 13, 2021, the Seaspan Careen vessel transported HMCS Corner Brook from the Esquimalt Graving Dock (EGD) to Ogden Point for the final stage of the undocking process.

HMCS Corner Brook is a long-range hunter-killer submarine (SSK) of the Royal Canadian Navy. She is the former Royal Navy Upholder-class submarine HMS Ursula (S42), purchased from the British at the end of the Cold War. She is the third boat of the Victoria class and is named after the city of Corner Brook, Newfoundland. The submarine was launched in 1989 and entered service with the Royal Navy in 1992. The Royal Navy laid Ursula up in 1994. In 1998, Canada acquired the submarine from the United Kingdom. The vessel entered service with the Canadian Armed Forces in 2003.

The Victoria class was designed as a replacement for the Oberon class for use as hunter-killer and training subs. The submarines, which have a single-skinned, teardrop-shaped hull, displace 2,220 long tons (2,260 t) surfaced and 2,455 long tons (2,494 t) submerged. They are 230 feet 7 inches (70.3 m) long overall with a beam of 25 feet 0 inches (7.6 m) and a draught of 17 feet 8 inches (5.4 m).

The submarines are powered by a one shaft diesel-electric system. They are equipped with two Paxman Valenta 1600 RPS SZ diesel engines each driving a 1.4-megawatt (1,900 hp) GEC electric alternator with two 120-cell chloride batteries. The batteries have a 90-hour endurance at 3 knots (5.6 km/h; 3.5 mph). The ship is propelled by a 4.028-megawatt (5,402 hp) GEC dual armature electric motor turning a seven-blade fixed pitch propeller.

They have a 200-long-ton (200 t) diesel capacity. This gives the subs a maximum speed of 12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph) on the surface and 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph) submerged. They have a range of 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km; 9,200 mi) at 8 knots (15 km/h; 9.2 mph) and 10,000 nautical miles (19,000 km; 12,000 mi) at snorting depth. They have a range of 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km; 9,200 mi) at 8 knots (15 km/h; 9.2 mph). The class has a reported dive depth of over 650 feet (200 m).

The Victoria class is armed with six 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes. In British service, the submarines were equipped with 14 Tigerfish Mk 24 Mod 2 torpedoes and four UGM-84 Sub-Harpoon missiles.

 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,719
Reactions
21 12,304
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
hey @DAVEBLOGGINS , so it appears that as the writer , you have acknowledge the importance of submarines in countering Russia and China's fleet in undersea warfare , I also agree that it be much better if Canada uses an already proven technology especially that the RnD of such totally brand new model will take so much time to do research and actually build, especially at the time which China and Russia are releasing new submarine at a faster rate than many are comfortable with.

is there an actual ongoing CA navy plan to replace the Victoria's ??
 

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
199
Reactions
5 325
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
hey @DAVEBLOGGINS , so it appears that as the writer , you have acknowledge the importance of submarines in countering Russia and China's fleet in undersea warfare , I also agree that it be much better if Canada uses an already proven technology especially that the RnD of such totally brand new model will take so much time to do research and actually build, especially at the time which China and Russia are releasing new submarine at a faster rate than many are comfortable with.

is there an actual ongoing CA navy plan to replace the Victoria's ??
There are no plans at the present by the government to replace the Victoria's however the Canadian Press has reported on the 14th of July 2021 that the RCN has initiated the long-anticipated push to replace Canada's Victoria class submarines. Some would say, too little, too late but the first baby steps have now been taken in what is likely to be a controversial debate. The RCN is establishing a Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP) this year to advise the government on potential replacement classes of submarines to avoid gaps in submarine capability. One can only hope!:rolleyes:

 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,719
Reactions
21 12,304
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
There are no plans at the present by the government to replace the Victoria's however the Canadian Press has reported on the 14th of July 2021 that the RCN has initiated the long-anticipated push to replace Canada's Victoria class submarines. Some would say, too little, too late but the first baby steps have now been taken in what is likely to be a controversial debate. The RCN is establishing a Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP) this year to advise the government on potential replacement classes of submarines to avoid gaps in submarine capability. One can only hope!:rolleyes:

With the amount of money spent on the CSC do you think the RCN will be able to lobby the govt to fund both CSC and next gen sub project at the same time?
 

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
199
Reactions
5 325
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
With the amount of money spent on the CSC do you think the RCN will be able to lobby the govt to fund both CSC and next gen sub project at the same time?
Hello AlphaMike. Yes, IMO at the end of the day the Canadian government will have to fund both the CSC Frigate program along with the Submarine program. An enormous cost I know, but look at what the PM and his government has spent so far on the COVID 19 responce.....more than $340B CAD thus far and counting. The government doesn't seem to be worrying too much about the "after-effects" of that kind of spending. The Submarine program will surely be hefty at around $70-80B CAD for 12 AIP Submarines along with up to anywhere between $70-80B CAD for the CSC Type 26 Frigate program (around $160B CAD total sail away price for both projects). These costs of course do not cover the "in-service and life cycle costs". Staggering costs yes, but the price of doing "Strong, Secure, Engaged. Cheers! o_O
 

RogerRanger

Contributor
Messages
602
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
I have been planning a Canadian navy for myself, just on an excel doc.

In my view Canada need all three types of submarines for operating in its different environments. So for the Arctic you need nuclear powered submarines (4 of them), then you need SSK's for operating in the Maritime territories and the Pacific waters (12 of them) and then you need midget submarines for operating in the great lakes (10 of them). So that's a total submarines force of 26 subs.

The main issue Canada has is the same issue as Russia. It has 4 different operating area's and it can't units all its forces in one area. So needs to split them up. Meaning it needs a much larger navy then its territorial waters would suggest, compared to its land territories. This is for example one major advantage the Chinese have over Russia in a cold war with the US.

As for the Canadian frigate program, the costs of the frigates will come down and be off-set by new export partners. 15 frigates is the right number to replace the old frigates and destroyers. However it still leaves Canada sort of numbers. Which is why I would look into a littoral combat frigate, at about half the price to increase overall combatant numbers for the Canadian navy. Say 10 LCF's and the 15 state of the art type 26 frigates.

You are also building 25,000 ton ice breakers, you need to get that done and operational, and keep your patrol ice breakers as well. Then you have all the other ships and boats, from missile boats, replenishment ships, minesweepers and patrol boats, which Canada also lacks. No navy in the English civilization or Anglo-sphere has the ships it needs to protect its own waters and lands. Only China has that capability in the world today, maybe Japan as well.

I was honestly shocked by how small and not very capable the Canadian navy was when I looked into it at first. Even with the coast guard.
 

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
199
Reactions
5 325
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
I have been planning a Canadian navy for myself, just on an excel doc.

In my view Canada need all three types of submarines for operating in its different environments. So for the Arctic you need nuclear powered submarines (4 of them), then you need SSK's for operating in the Maritime territories and the Pacific waters (12 of them) and then you need midget submarines for operating in the great lakes (10 of them). So that's a total submarines force of 26 subs.

The main issue Canada has is the same issue as Russia. It has 4 different operating area's and it can't units all its forces in one area. So needs to split them up. Meaning it needs a much larger navy then its territorial waters would suggest, compared to its land territories. This is for example one major advantage the Chinese have over Russia in a cold war with the US.

As for the Canadian frigate program, the costs of the frigates will come down and be off-set by new export partners. 15 frigates is the right number to replace the old frigates and destroyers. However it still leaves Canada sort of numbers. Which is why I would look into a littoral combat frigate, at about half the price to increase overall combatant numbers for the Canadian navy. Say 10 LCF's and the 15 state of the art type 26 frigates.

You are also building 25,000 ton ice breakers, you need to get that done and operational, and keep your patrol ice breakers as well. Then you have all the other ships and boats, from missile boats, replenishment ships, minesweepers and patrol boats, which Canada also lacks. No navy in the English civilization or Anglo-sphere has the ships it needs to protect its own waters and lands. Only China has that capability in the world today, maybe Japan as well.

I was honestly shocked by how small and not very capable the Canadian navy was when I looked into it at first. Even with the coast guard.
Hello RogerRanger. Your submarine fleet is certainly ambitious! Although nice to have, 26 submarines, 10 LCF's along with all your other missile boats, AOR's, minesweepers and patrol vessels is completely un-realistic and does not make any sense for Canada. We tried to buy the Trafalgar class subs from Britain in 1987 but that was squashed by the USA who would not let their nuclear technology be shared by any other nation than Britain. We could not man them as well. We just don't have the Navy to do that. The Canadian Coast Guard is a completely autonomous entity and has very little to do with the CAF. They have their own budget and CONOPS compared to the RCN. One thing I will challenge you on though. You call the RCN "not very capable". Yes we are small but I would argue with you that we are more capable than you may know. Just ask some of our NATO counterparts and you might want to change your mind on that point. Here is a more realistic RCN fleet for Canada:

1. 15 CSC Type 26 Frigates-(8 East/7West Coasts)
2. 6 AOPS Harry DeWolfe class-(4 East/2West Coasts or 3 & 3)
3. 4 Protecteur class Joint Support Ships (JSS) AORs-(2 East/2 West Coasts)
4. 4 Juan Carlos Class LHDs-(2 East/2 West Coasts)
5. 12 modern AIP/Diesel Ice Capable Submarines- (French Barracuda class Block 1A/Japanese Soryu 29SS class or German Type 216 class

We would definitely have to increase our CAF strength by 3-4000 personnel to man the extra 2 JSS and 4 LHDs but a more realistic Fleet.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,303
Reactions
96 18,874
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
You call the RCN "not very capable". Yes we are small but I would argue with you that we are more capable than you may know. Just ask our NATO counterparts and you might want to change your mind on that point.

In fact I know this w.r.t qualitative basis especially. Having talked to number of well experienced Naval folks in the know.

The 5 top navies qualitatively are generally agreed upon: USN, RN, RCN, RAN and Dutch.

French, Italian, Japanese and bunch of others make the honour rolls just after this lot.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,719
Reactions
21 12,304
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
In fact I know this w.r.t qualitative basis especially. Having talked to number of well experienced Naval folks in the know.

The 5 top navies qualitatively are generally agreed upon: USN, RN, RCN, RAN and Dutch.

French, Italian, Japanese and bunch of others make the honour rolls just after this lot.
Nah, JMSDF is in the top 5.

Surprised that you rank RAN on top of the JMSDF.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,719
Reactions
21 12,304
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
You call the RCN "not very capable". Yes we are small but I would argue with you that we are more capable than you may know. Just ask some of our NATO counterparts and you might want to change your mind on that point. Here is a more realistic RCN fleet for Canada:
Could you give us a picture/glimpse of RCN anti sub or general surface warfare capabilities, knowing that you actually served ?

Would be appreciated, since I believe you had been on a CIC room as command and control crew.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,303
Reactions
96 18,874
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Nah, JMSDF is in the top 5.

Surprised that you rank RAN on top of the JMSDF.

It is very close up at the top (this is purely qualitative realm).

These are splitting hairs tbh...and there is always issue of the small biases (given you haven't read/served in all systems equally).

This is generally what I have gathered from people I trust a lot and/or served.

i.e who have read up on course structures and various disciplines within the various Navies...and their overall consensus with others that have served and those in the know.
 
Last edited:

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
199
Reactions
5 325
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Could you give us a picture/glimpse of RCN anti sub or general surface warfare capabilities, knowing that you actually served ?

Would be appreciated, since I believe you had been on a CIC room as command and control crew.
Surely AlphaMike, although instead of giving you a long drawn-out "speel" about the RCN, I will let the Naval Association of Canada (NAC) do it with a couple of briefing notes:


Hope these are helpful for you. Cheers!:)
 

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
199
Reactions
5 325
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Here is an Opinion piece written by the Canadian Naval Review webmaster on Canada's beleagered submarine replacement history. and replacing the Victoria class submarines. An interesting and thought-provoking article by the CNR Webmaster on Canadian submarine acquisition and political bungling by Canadian governments over the last 70 years. We never seem to learn from our mistakes on Naval procurements. In my opinion (IMO), once the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP) is stood up by the RCN, one of its first mandates would be to immediately create a public document for the Canadian people explaining why Canada desperately needs to quickly proceed with a modern AIP submarine acquisition program and give them specific options and numbers required. There have never been so many options in the past as there are now. They must enlighten Canadians with the different types of modern AIP Submarines and specifically discuss submarine requirements for the future RCN submarine fleet with pros and cons of building them in Canada. There are now several types of ocean-going AIP submarines being built by France, Germany, Spain and Japan that may “fit the bill” where once there were no options at all. These include the 12 French Barracuda Block 1A class (based on their Suffern class SSN) now being built in Australia for the RAN by the French DCNS Group; the Spanish S80 Plus class being built by Spanish company Navantia; the Soryu 29SS class with Lithium Ion Battery (LIB) technology from Japan being built by Kawasaki Heavy Industries and the German type 216 now being developed by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS). Most have different AIP technologies, have displacements of over 4000 tons with pros and cons in all of these modern AIP/Diesel designs. They all would however be game changers as future Canadian submarines. The Canadian Senate recommended to the government in 2017 to swiftly acquire 12 modern AIP replacements for the beleaguered Victoria class but the government quickly rejected that recommendation. Lets then have the Canadian people contribute to the RCNs recommendations to the government for its final decision and quickly push forward on this!

 
Last edited:

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,303
Reactions
96 18,874
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Lets then have the Canadian people contribute to the RCNs recommendations to the government for its final decision and quickly push forward on this!


I agree...I have raised this issue wherever possible with people in the know.

I would steer clear of shortfin barracuda personally...one ends up paying SSN prices without the (N). Just look at the Aussie nightmare unfolding on it.

CSC cost escalations are already going to be massively painful on taxdollar/debt situation.

SSK should be an original SSK design....and have AIP.

Canada should not lose this SSK capability that will be so vital to a number of waterways increasingly.
 

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
199
Reactions
5 325
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Hello all! In My Own Opinion (IMOO) I believe the RCN will have 3 options for the government to consider. In order of priority, here are my 'final 3:

1. The German 4000 ton Type 216 AIP Submarine. The reasoning behind this is because the Canadian Senate has expressed that 12 of these subs be AIP in nature to the Government in 2017 (A modern AIP Submarine);

2. The Japanese 4200 ton Soryu Type 29SS AIP Submarine. This class probably has the best potential for Canadian high Arctic submarine operations; and

3. The French 4100-5000 ton Barracuda class Block 1A Diesel Submarine. Although not an AIP Submarine-(yet), it is probably more quiet as opposed to the first 2 and would be a great option and game-changer for Canada.

I do engage all forum members to discuss these 3 options and give me their opinions.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

DAVEBLOGGINS

Committed member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
199
Reactions
5 325
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
I agree...I have raised this issue wherever possible with people in the know.

I would steer clear of shortfin barracuda personally...one ends up paying SSN prices without the (N). Just look at the Aussie nightmare unfolding on it.

CSC cost escalations are already going to be massively painful on taxdollar/debt situation.

SSK should be an original SSK design....and have AIP.

Canada should not lose this SSK capability that will be so vital to a number of waterways increasingly.
Totally agree Nilgirl!!
I agree...I have raised this issue wherever possible with people in the know.

I would steer clear of shortfin barracuda personally...one ends up paying SSN prices without the (N). Just look at the Aussie nightmare unfolding on it.

CSC cost escalations are already going to be massively painful on taxdollar/debt situation.

SSK should be an original SSK design....and have AIP.

Canada should not lose this SSK capability that will be so vital to a number of waterways increasingly.
Again agree Nilgirl. Here is my own opinion as to what the RCN should respond to the government with:

In My Own Opinion (IMOO) I believe the RCN will have 3 options for the government to consider. In order of priority, here are my 'final 3:

1. The German 4000 ton Type 216 AIP Submarine. The reasoning behind this is because the Canadian Senate has expressed that 12 of these subs be AIP in nature to the Government in 2017 (A modern AIP Submarine);

2. The Japanese 4200 ton Soryu Type 29SS AIP Submarine. This class probably has the best potential for Canadian high Arctic submarine operations with its LIB technology; and

3. The French 4100-5000 ton Barracuda class Block 1A Diesel Submarine. Although not an AIP Submarine-(yet), it is probably more quiet as opposed to the first 2 and would be a great option and game-changer for Canada.

I do engage all forum members to discuss these 3 options and give me their opinions.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,303
Reactions
96 18,874
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Totally agree Nilgirl!!

Again agree Nilgirl. Here is my own opinion at to what the RCN should respond to the government with:

In My Own Opinion (IMOO) I believe the RCN will have 3 options for the government to consider. In order of priority, here are my 'final 3:

1. The German 4000 ton Type 216 AIP Submarine. The reasoning behind this is because the Canadian Senate has expressed that 12 of these subs be AIP in nature to the Government in 2017 (A modern AIP Submarine);

2. The Japanese 4200 ton Soryu Type 29SS AIP Submarine. This class probably has the best potential for Canadian high Arctic submarine operations with its LIB technology; and

3. The French 4100-5000 ton Barracuda class Block 1A Diesel Submarine. Although not an AIP Submarine-(yet), it is probably more quiet as opposed to the first 2 and would be a great option and game-changer for Canada.

I do engage all forum members to discuss these 3 options and give me their opinions.:rolleyes:

I wonder if we need to look into what the relevant shipyard occupancy rates are projected like for these 3 countries.

That will give a measure of crucial cost and time that may be involved for each.

Comparing the systems themselves qualitatively on various components can be done as information allows for it....but I feel they are overall in the top tier so the cost/time issue and their relative potential to escalate (past the sticker price negotiated) would be of likely greater relevance to look at first.

Especially if we are going for 12 (given there are 4 victorias iirc).

@Anmdt
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,303
Reactions
96 18,874
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Hello all! In My Own Opinion (IMOO) I believe the RCN will have 3 options for the government to consider. In order of priority, here are my 'final 3:

1. The German 4000 ton Type 216 AIP Submarine. The reasoning behind this is because the Canadian Senate has expressed that 12 of these subs be AIP in nature to the Government in 2017 (A modern AIP Submarine);

2. The Japanese 4200 ton Soryu Type 29SS AIP Submarine. This class probably has the best potential for Canadian high Arctic submarine operations; and

3. The French 4100-5000 ton Barracuda class Block 1A Diesel Submarine. Although not an AIP Submarine-(yet), it is probably more quiet as opposed to the first 2 and would be a great option and game-changer for Canada.

I do engage all forum members to discuss these 3 options and give me their opinions.:rolleyes:

Would you like me to combine the 2 threads into one thread about Canadian SSK program?
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom